Revelations of backroom deals and charges of betrayal dominated debate Friday as the Senate continued to wrestle with controversial motions to suspend Senators Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau from the Senate without pay.

Brazeau struck back against the man who proposed suspending him, accusing Claude Carignan, Government leader in the Senate, of offering him a backroom deal; a lesser penalty in exchange for a public apology. Meanwhile, Wallin tabled a series of documents that draws one of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s most trusted advisors – chief of staff Ray Novak – closer into the affair.

By the end of the drama-filled day, senators had still not passed judgment on the fate of the three senators at the heart of a scandal over Senate expense account spending that has gripped Parliament Hill.

However, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives served notice that they will not allow the debate to drag on. Shortly after debate entered its fourth day, Conservative Deputy Leader Yonah Martin gave notice she will introduce a motion Monday that would force a vote before the party’s policy convention in Calgary next week.

But while it appears the government will force its senators to vote to limit debate, to date the Conservatives say they will allow their senators to vote according to their conscience on whether to suspend three of their former Conservative colleagues until the next election.

If the motions pass, Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau could be senators in name only by the end of next week — stripped of their pay, their powers, their benefits and their budgets.

At the heart of the controversy is expense account claims filed by the three senators that the Senate determined were improperly claimed. All three are under RCMP investigation. None of the three have been charged in connection with the expense claims although Brazeau faces criminal charges of sexual assault unconnected to the Senate spending scandal.

Last week, Carignan gave notice of the motions to suspend the three and strip them of their salaries and benefits. However, the motions triggered concerns on the part of a number of senators, including Conservatives Hugh Segal and Don Plett, a former president of the party, that the Senate is being asked to bypass due process and the rule of law.

Meanwhile, the Liberals have proposed the issue be referred to a televised parliamentary committee where witnesses can testify and documents can be tabled.

Plett, who delivered a heartfelt speech Thursday calling on senators not to trample due process and the rule of law in their rush to judgment, said Friday that he plans to introduce an amendment next week to the motions to suspend the three senators.

Speaking to reporters, Plett said the Senate also should take the time to debate the issue fully.

“I have been speaking about due process. Due process sometimes takes a bit of time. In my opinion, if we can slow it down a little bit … we are the chamber of sober second thought, so let’s simply go with sober second thought.”

Plett said he has received a lot of feedback and, so far, e-mails are running 10 to one in favour of his position.

The most dramatic moment of the day came when Brazeau rose to support the Liberal motion to refer the question to committee and dropped a bombshell, accusing Carignan of offering him a backroom deal that morning.

“At about 10:20 a.m. this morning, I was outside this chamber in the back and the leader of the government in the Senate took me aside – and I’ll be very careful about my words here – but I was essentially offered a backroom deal. And the backroom deal was that if I stood in this chamber, apologized to Canadians, and took responsibility for my actions, that my punishment would be lesser than what is being proposed in the leader of the government in the Senate’s motion.”

Brazeau said he is not prepared to admit he did anything wrong until he gets a fair hearing because he doesn’t feel he did.

Carignan confirmed that he spoke with Brazeau but he said Brazeau mischaracterized the conversation.

“It’s ridiculous,” Carignan told reporters. “I said to Senator Brazeau: Look, Patrick, you could do some amendments, if you could propose some things and apologize. You listened to Senator Wallin, she apologized, so you do some things to try to help your case. It was only that and he said it’s a ‘deal’. It’s not a deal, that’s stupid. Ridiculous.”

Brazeau’s bombshell came after Wallin fired a rocket of her own, including tabling documents that show that PMO stalwart Ray Novak was directly involved in the negotiations over her departure from the Conservative caucus – a deal her lawyer accused Novak of breaking. The two parties agreed to say Wallin would “recuse” herself from caucus – a phrase that implies something temporary – then Government house leader Marjory LeBreton said publicly that Wallin had resigned from caucus.

Wallin also waived her privilege and asked that the transcript of the secretive closed door Board of Internal Economy meeting that discussed her spending be made public. For example, she said, the auditors with Deloitte disallowed many trips that senators in the room had felt should qualify under the senate spending rules and the rules governing spending were vague.

In an emotional speech, Wallin recounted how she apologized on national television and how many of her trips were a mix of Senate and private business.

“I was doing dozens of trips every month and it was hard for anyone to keep up,” Wallin said with a catch in her voice.

Wallin said she voluntarily paid back the cost of trips once mistakes were discovered.

Earlier, Wallin described how she was asked to travel across the country to speak because she was a senator and because she had visited Afghanistan.

“Did doing my job then make guilty of not fulfilling some unspecified percentage of time to be spent in Ottawa or Saskatchewan? I implore you, make the rules clearer, define what is or isn’t parliamentary business if you want to go that way but then we have to be consistent.”

“When the consequences are as dire as the ones you propose, then the rules and standards must be much much clearer for us and for Senate administration and finance officials.”

For example, Wallin said a fellow senator took the same trip she did and his was allowed while hers was disallowed.

Throughout the audit of her expenses, Wallin said she was plagued by leaks of confidential information to the media – leaks she believes had to originate with a member of the Board of Internal Economy or its subcommittee. Requests for an investigation into the leaks were ignored, she said.

Wallin said she would like the benefits of a court, including the right to counsel by her own lawyer and to answer questions.

“Due process is not possible in this chamber where it seems a majority wants to put my head on a platter.”

Wallin also urged senators to wait for the outcome of the police investigation, warning that the Senate’s actions risk jeopardizing the probe.

“The rule of law would have to be ignored by every single one of you who votes for this motion. Please, do not try to convict us now.”